Reconstruction talk:Proto-Slavic/-ařь

-ařь instead of -arь
I'm wondering where did you find -arjь? I couldn't find this suffix in ЭССЯ and Derksen, but. —Useigor (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because both OCS and Slovene reflect this. —CodeCat 00:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm, strange, in descendants they doesn't (-arĭ & -ar). Could you give source where they does? —Useigor (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The nominative forms OCS -arĭ and Slovene -ar could theoretically reflect either form. But these forms clearly decline as soft stems, not i-stems. Slovene for example as nom. -ar, gen. -arja, dat. -arju etc. And OCS likewise shows soft declension rather than i-stem declension. —CodeCat 18:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought about what evidences *-yřь given in some places since this month’s filling of the category Category:Proto-Slavic words suffixed with *-yrь, and so discovered that this palatalization would only be visible in Slovene and Old Church Slavonic inflected forms, and based on the Slovene descendants Category:Proto-Slavic words suffixed with *-yrь with content pages has to be merged to Category:Proto-Slavic words suffixed with *-yřь. : Right? is inconsistent with  and against the Slovene inflection. Then,  and  (for which last the ESSJa cites the OCS literally as косор҄ь, but not giving *kosořь, though they sometimes give *-řь for other words, apparently they are inconsistent, also because of a Russian point of view), which seems just another alternative vocalism of about the same suffix, as e.g. I created  to redirect to main ; also  should be  in view of the Slovene inflection; this could be difficult with some other items we have Proto-Slavic pages for ending in *-rь when the Slovene descendant is not or badly attested, but there aren’t altogether many yet that could be moved and actually I have looked through all the Proto-Slavic nouns now and as I have checked there aren’t any I haven’t mentioned. Fay Freak (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but I would personally abstain from favoring either option. I recall from the top of my head the case of 🇨🇬 (yo-stem) which seemingly continues an earlier 🇨🇬 (i-stem as evident by 🇨🇬). Apparently, there was some diachronic leveling and readjustment with this class of suffixes (,, , , etc.) so I cannot tell conclusively what is the deal with them. Sorry for avoiding the question. Безименен (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the Slovene  does not inflect palatally. But one could suspect that palatalization in -yrь, -orь words and is analogical due to -ařь, particularly if one contends that they are an unrelated suffix: Slovene even inflects   and so on. Still having  but  seems inconsistent, and I don’t see it to be an unidentical suffixes. Fay Freak (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Plural, oblique cases
I don't have an online source at hand, but they're either wrong or there were alternative forms -- the stem should be hard. I remember that my OCS book covered this irregularity. It explains Polish placenames like Winiary, Kowary, Psary from old local cases (mainly genitive, accusative & locative) of winiarz, *kowarz, *psarz. The same holds for nouns ending in -telь (cf. literary Polish przyjaciół & colloquial przyjacieli). 37.190.149.78 23:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don’t think so.  is also not a locative but literally “Italians”, nominative plural. And the toponyms have often not followed phonological rules applied to the nouns they derive from, especially in Poland, they may be hard due to non-standard dialect variation. Fay Freak (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2021 (UTC)